Paper short abstract

Drawing on findings from a project scoping UK social science in engineering biology, we reflect on possibilities for commoning and sympoiesis of frontier technologies in the UK and beyond.

Paper long abstract

Engineering biology (EngBio) and its precursor synthetic biology (SynBio) have long been priority technologies for the UK, with EngBio now one of six frontier technologies foregrounded in ‘The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy’ (2025). The UK STS community has engaged dynamically with SynBio since its emergence in the mid-2000s: undertaking analyses of the socio-technical, ethical, political, and epistemic dimensions of the field, collaborating across disciplines, embedding in synthetic biology centres, and contributing to teaching/training, road-mapping, policy-making, and public/stakeholder engagement. However, these interactions have not been without their challenges, often arising from radically diverging imaginaries of the futures of SynBio/EngBio and the role of social science in this landscape (Balmer et al., 2015; Marris and Calvert, 2020).

This paper shares findings from a consultancy research project commissioned by UK research funder the Economic and Social Research Council to scope the current state and future potential of UK social science in EngBio and inform strategy and priorities for investment. Drawing on a review of literature and grants 2007-2025 and a series of workshops and interviews with social scientists, scientists and policymakers in EngBio, we mapped social science contributions, identified gaps and opportunities, and outlined challenges in building interdisciplinary and social science capacity. Many participants shared agendas aligned with commoning (bringing together) of socio-technical frontiers or the overcoming of epistemic and power asymmetries towards sympoiesis (making-with) of socio-technical futures. We reflect on what hope there might be for reconciling these ambitions for frontier technologies within the increasingly growth-oriented setting of UK (and wider) academia.

Paper short abstract

This paper integrates commoning and conflict mediation literatures to analyse relational dynamics which cement contested socio-technical futures.

Paper long abstract

Commoning is an “experiment with ways of being-in-common with the world” (Garcia-Lopez, Lang and Singh, 2021). It involves learning how to relate to one another through practicing humility, seeking out collaboration, and recognising interdependence. Ultimately, commoning means cultivating productive relational dynamics whereby conflict within and between communities can be creatively and pragmatically navigated. However, dysfunctional relational dynamics can and do cement conflict in ways which undermine “being-in-common”. This paper explores how such relational failures are entangled with contested sociotechnical imaginaries and result in processes of “uncommoning”.

Such dynamics are explored through the case of UK civil society debates around genetic technologies in agriculture. Division and conflict over genetic technologies in agriculture arose during the late 1990s and 2000s, resulting from protest and intense public debate. Whilst the prominence of this conflict has declined within the media, narratives of division and conflict persist. This is evident within civil society responses to the UK Government’s Genetic Technologies (Precision-Breeding) 2023 Act. Those interested and/or concerned with this legislation position one another as holding rival beliefs and identities. Absent amongst these individuals and organisations is attention towards engaging with those they disagree with in a way which can transform how they relate to one another.

This paper will integrate commoning and conflict mediations literatures to analyse the relational dynamics which lead to “uncommoning”. By doing so, it hopes to offer pragmatic, action orientated reflections for the commoning of sociotechnical imaginaries.

Paper short abstract

Longevity tech is dominated by technocratic age-repair narratives. I question this approach, proposing a shift toward sympoiesis - a symbiotic approach to aging. By bridging STEM and SSH, I aim to commonize life-extension frontiers, supporting marginalized voices for future bioconstitutional shifts.

Paper long abstract

Longevity biotechnology runs at the frontier of disruptive socio-technical development, yet current sociotechnical imaginaries are dominated by transhumanist, techno-optimist narratives that treat aging as a biological error to be fixed. I critically interrogate these instrumental visions by analyzing scientific literature, legal documents, and media releases in the United States, where geroscience and longbio thrive. Supported by Jasanoffian analytical categories, I argue that the dominance of a technocratic age-repair vision necessitates an urgent shift toward sympoiesis - a making-with that acknowledges our entangled existence.

I contrast the transhumanist drive for biological optimization with the organic reality of human aging, asking: can we envision a longevity biotechnology that replaces the desire to transcend nature with a symbiotic relationship between technology and the human life cycle? This study moves beyond the binary of radical engineering versus passive decline, exploring how technology might support care rather than narrow the understanding of ageing and prioritize bio-optimization.

Crucially, I position the role of an SSH researcher as a form of commoning. By bridging the current epistemic gap between STEM and SSH, my work serves as a facilitating pipe to democratize and renegotiate the frontier of tech-based life extension. By integrating diverse perspectives - including the concerns of underprivileged communities - I map and critically examine current sociotechnical imaginaries. I explore how we can foster a more equitable bioconstitutional change. Ultimately, this research seeks to move beyond the issue of longevity stratification, aiming for a sympoietic future where life extension is governed through inclusive democratic conversation.

Paper short abstract

We repurpose a found object – the potato varieties booklet – to play with the governance of plant synthetic biology. What values do we want to embed in a synthetic potato? What traits will it carry, and what will it taste like? What worlds will it help grow? What shouldn’t it do?

Paper long abstract

“Dominic Dream is a maincrop all-rounder with 30% reduction in water usage compared to market leader Maris Piper. Produces a high number of large oval-shaped tubers with creamy skin and floury texture. Ideal roasters. Resistant to G. rostochiensis and late blight. Ideal for farmers working intensively/extensively/subsistence [delete as appropriate]. Open-source; commercially available via SustainablyAbundant® as true seed with restitution guarantee in case of failure (t+c’s apply). A forward-thinking variety securing food futures, catalysed by Britain’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency to benefit all.”

We are STS researchers working within ARIA Synthetic Plants Programme, researching its social and political dimensions. Here we share an ongoing experiment in collaborative, situated governance. The excerpt above introduces a speculative varieties booklet through one hypothetical variety. Real varieties booklets are a ubiquitous currency of potato fairs and industry events: marketing tools, but also codifications of plant breeding’s trade-offs. Could they also serve as an epistemic bridge between the world of potato breeders and synthetic biologists working on potatoes — making visible not only technical decisions around trait choice, but the values and world-building choices woven into technology? If so, what trade-offs should be foregrounded, and who should decide? If the world is to have a synthetic potato, what should it look like and taste like? What constraints does the potato itself bring? And what worlds might it help grow? Our hope is that ‘thinking with varieties booklets’ might be an opportunity to playfully broach the complexity of designing with organisms in more-than-human societies.